Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: Editorial: Regrettable decision on Defense of Marriage Act

Comments

Return To Article
  • Bubble SLC, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 6:15 p.m.

    Marriage is a state's rights issue - always was until the Federal Government stepped in with DOMA.

    It is only right that this issue is turned back over to the states where it rightfully belongs.

  • Pheo Saint George, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 6:54 p.m.

    People who talk about states rights actually love it when the federal government enforces laws that they agree with.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 23, 2011 6:54 p.m.

    Another step on the right direction!
    I find President Obama slow to act and of course politically motivated. But, whatever the reason(s), I celebrate the fact that all citizens eventually will be able to enjoy all the privileges, rights and responsibilties of our democracy.
    Tradition should not be used as an excuse for discrimination and inequality.
    Today is a good day in the U.S.A. and the future looks even brighter.

  • Californian Santa Ana, CA
    Feb. 23, 2011 7:05 p.m.

    In California, the people voted for Prop 8, marriage defined as a man and a woman. The governor, Schwarzenegger, and governor elect, Jerry Brown, who was serving as attorney general, refused to support the will of the people in this legitimate effort. All political..nor ethical or moral.

  • Bubble SLC, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 7:25 p.m.

    @ Californian: Attorney General Brown refused to defend a law and yet the majority of Californians elected him Governor....

    Hmmm.... Why do you think that is?

    Do you think that maybe some of those who voted for Prop 8 changed their minds and that is why he was elected? Maybe they found out that the ads used to support Prop 8 were a bunch of lies? Or maybe once 8000 of their fellow citizens got married and the world didn't end they decided it really wasn't that big of a deal after all....

    Whatever their reasoning, the majority of Californians obviously are not too upset with Jerry Brown.

  • WonderingAloud Ogden, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 7:27 p.m.

    This is not unprecedented. In fact a similar thing happens every day in cities and counties and in federal offices where government attorneys general and local district attorneys refuse to prosecute old, unconstitutional, and out of date laws. At a time when our governments are bloated and debt ridden, defending this law is a massive waste of money.

    Now if only this administration will stop defending ObamaCare in court!

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 7:29 p.m.

    The Deseret News is on the wrong side of this issue.

  • silas brill Heber, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 7:44 p.m.

    [ We deplore the penchant of this administration to override tradition and process in order to enact untested social policy. ]

    The Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health decision was decided on November 18, 2003. That was 7 1/4 years ago. It's tested social policy already. There are ample precedents in other countries, like Canada, for example, which legalized same gender marriage on July 20, 2005.

    What do you need to know? How would you recommend we test social polices?

  • Tekakaromatagi Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
    Feb. 23, 2011 8:07 p.m.

    The Deseret news is right. What I found somewhat alarming is that the AG confused justifiable moral objections with 'animus'. In my experience 98% of the time what is identified as 'homophobia' (bigotry towards gays) is simply someone's moral or cultural objections. It is the height of cultural chauvinism to conclude that someones moral or cultural beliefs are an indication of bigotry or a borderline pschological problem.

    Tekakaromatagi

  • BYR Woods Cross, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 8:23 p.m.

    McBilly - good point.

    Perhaps I am incorrect but the article, as I understand the first three paragraphs is NOT about same sex marriage but about the fed defending the law of land. I am not saying those laws are right, good, etc. But I do NOT see this article as a defense of marriage.

  • Woodyff Mapleton, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 8:43 p.m.

    It is what you would expect from Obama. He determined it was unconstitutional, I thought the Supreme Court was to rule on the constitutionality of laws. But not now that we have Obama. The Obama administration should not be deciding which laws they will enforce, but they have done that before.

  • Jared Gainesville, FL
    Feb. 23, 2011 9:05 p.m.

    Re: MenaceToSociety

    All men are created equal? Is that why the Founding Fathers also abolished slavery? I know some were opposed to slavery but slavery persisted for almost another 100 years. So what does the Declaration of Independence state?

    "All men are created equal" - Notice the word "created", implying by God.
    How are they equal? They are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". So they are endowed by God with certain rights - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    Again, even with this background, slavery was still allowed. There were a lot of reasons for that but the term liberty meant different things to different groups of people at that time; none of the meanings really meant how we typically use liberty today (read David Hackett Fischer's Washington's Crossing for a good discussion of this). So, when it was written, "all men are created equal", it didn't mean at that time quite what we take it to mean today.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Feb. 23, 2011 9:05 p.m.

    I happen to disagree with the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. Still this editorial makes a reasonable case that the Justice Department should provide the resources to make a defense of it. I think the proper course to take is to repeal this legislation.

  • NT Springville, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 9:09 p.m.

    Typical Obama - totally disregarding his oath of office - again

    I continue to expect the unexpected (and illegal) with this Chavez-like administration

  • Arizona2 Tucson, AZ
    Feb. 23, 2011 9:18 p.m.

    I think the article and the comment by Henry Drummond are right on. Whether or not the executive agrees with enacted laws, they should still defend them in court. It shouldn't be their prerogative to pick and choose what to enforce.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Feb. 23, 2011 9:48 p.m.

    Whenever we pass a law we should consider the law of unintended consequences. Often the long term consequences of a new law are far worse than the problems that the new law was intended rectify. Many people can see no problem with letting gays get married--after all, they love each other. But, if gays can get married, then what is going to prevent a brother and sister from getting married? Or two brothers? Or two sisters? Or a father and a daughter? Or a father and a son? Or two men and three women (polyamory)? And on and on and on. As long as people love each other, then let's let them legalize the relationship. But, once we open the Pandora's box of gay marriage, are we ready and prepared for the social chaos that will be the inevitable consequence? Or are the gays so selfish that they don't care about the long-term damage to society as long as they can get their way?

  • bjh96 Orem, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 10:01 p.m.

    Most people are missing the point of this article. This is not entirely about the homosexuality issue. This is about effectively enacting law (or reversing existing law by non-enforcement) as a non-elected official.

    Congress is meaningless if Holder starts choosing what to enforce. The proper remedy is passing legislation against DOMA (the article clearly states this). This shouldn't be Holder's decision. Nobody elected him to guide us on social reform - only to help Obama enforce the laws.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Feb. 23, 2011 10:29 p.m.

    This editorial leaves out that the Obama administration did in fact defend DOMA in court and lost. What they are deciding to do now is not continue on appeals. One of the things we empower the Administrative Branch with is to make decisions on what decisions to appeal or not. There is no expectation that an administration must continue to fight a losing battle if they don't believe they will win.

  • Considering Stockton, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 10:40 p.m.

    This is not and should not be about your or even Obama's personal views about DOMA or any other federal law.

    How many would quickly switch sides if a republican president said he was no longer going to defend the constitutionality of various gun control laws, or federal ADA laws, or federal OSHA laws, or federal anti-discrimination laws?

    Congress passes a law, the executive signs it (or it passes over a veto). It is now the executive's SWORN duty to uphold and defend the laws. If the law is bad, Obama should make his case to congress to repeal it just as he successfully did with DADT.

    EVERY person here who supports Obama in refusing to defend this law before the courts must then concede that every future president (democrat or gop) has the same prerogative regarding ANY law s/he doesn't like. Think carefully about that.

    If DOMA is bad law, Obama should make the case to congress. If it is unconstitutional, citizens should make the case to the courts, but do so against a full, honest, vigorous defense.

    Obama's path here leads to rule of man rather than law.

  • TheWalker Saratoga Springs, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 10:58 p.m.

    Homosexuality is, always has been, and always will be, a form of sexual perversion. The majority of Americans do not support same-sex marriage, but even if they did, that would not change the nature of the relationship.

    Love/lust does not justify changing the definition of marriage, nor does it justify forcing those who oppose homosexual marriage to accept it as an alternative to the divine origin and meaning of marriage.

  • The Deuce Livermore, CA
    Feb. 23, 2011 11:31 p.m.

    Well, we have a new process to follow: "If you don't like a law and feel it is unconstitutional" just don't obey the law. When you are taken to court simply reference Obama and DOMA. I am not debating the issue of equality of marriage or anything other than the fact that Obama has set a dangerous precedent. I wonder where this guy is going. I am not sure we can keep afloat with his type of change.

  • Joggle Clearfield, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 11:48 p.m.

    @JSB

    The arguments against gay marriage don't hold up to close scrutiny. Neither the arguments traditionally raised nor the real feelings of opponents make much sense when held up to the light of reason.
    So let's get on with it. Let's get over the aversion to what is opposed for silly, irrational reasons, based on ignorance and faulty assumptions, and make ours a more just and honorable society, "With liberty and justice for all." We really don't know that there will be long-term damage to society. At the end of the day, the opposition to gay marriage stems ultimately from a deep-seated homophobia in American culture, borne almost entirely out of religious prejudice. While many Americans do not realize that that homophobia exists to the extent that it does, it is a very real part of every gay person's life. It is there, it is pervasive, and it has far more serious consequences for American society than most Americans realize, not just for gays, but for society in general. It's hard to see how the promotion of love, commitment, sharing and commonality of values and goals isn't going strengthen society.

  • In My Humble Opinion South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 23, 2011 11:50 p.m.

    Any person whose view of the administrations action in this case is based on their opinion on whether or not the law is right or wrong misses the point of the article AND doesn't understand the process by which our laws and the constitution are supposed to operate. The PROCESS should be honored and fully utilized, not jerry rigged to manipulate an outcome.

    1- Propose a law
    2- Vote on it
    3- Enact a law
    4- Challenge it
    5- Vigorously contest the pros and cons
    6- Receive a rulling
    7- Enforce the law, or if you agree, seek to pass a different law.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 12:45 a.m.

    "One has been where there is not a reasonable basis in law for an act's constitutionality because of intervening and indistinguishable Supreme Court rulings."

    Oh good, because DOMA is unconstitutional.

    Also, the Justice Department is still going to provide aid to others who take up the defense of DOMA.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 12:55 a.m.

    "EVERY person here who supports Obama in refusing to defend this law before the courts must then concede that every future president (democrat or gop) has the same prerogative regarding ANY law s/he doesn't like. Think carefully about that."

    I support obama's decision. Why? Because the whole story would tell you a key point. White House spokesman Jay Carney noted that the administration would do what's required so other interested groups or members of Congress are able to take the defense of DOMA. As long as there's still the option of someone to fight things, it's not nearly as bad as it's being made out to be.

  • delasalle Sandy, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 1:42 a.m.

    @JSB. While I don't have a strong opinion on DOMA, I reject the notion that allowing gay marriage to happen will result in all other forms of "marriage" that you have enumerated to be allowed. All change, whether positive or negative, can theoretically lead to further change. Generally however we as humans have been smart enough to recognize when we have reached both a theoretical and actual boundary. One could have easily argued that allowing women to vote would eventually lead to allowing children, monkeys, dolphins and dogs to eventually vote. But this seems unlikely to happen. One could argue that allowing citizens to own firearms would eventually lead to citizens being allowed to own military use tanks, ICBMs and eventually nuclear warheads. But this also seems a stretch. My point is, whether you agree or disagree with DOMA, stating that one will lead to another is a weak form of argument and best and illogical at worst.

  • Rickety Kaysville, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 6:02 a.m.

    This will come back to haunt the president in 2012 with lost support.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 6:12 a.m.

    It may be regrettable for supporters of DOMA, but it is not an unprecedented action. Not at all.

    And a previous commenter is right, is this a state level issue or not? If so, then states rights proponents should be pleased. You can't have it both ways.

  • The Sensible Middle Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 6:27 a.m.

    There is no state that allows marriages between gays is there? Civil Unions are allowed, the difference is only the name.

    Don't understand why this isn't good enough. Also don't understand how calling the union between gays Marriage would hurt anyones hetrosexual marriage, i.e. why the name Defence of Marriage Act?

    If anyone can explain please do so.

  • mikeh Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 6:37 a.m.

    Obama "Reignites?"

    Really, Deseret News? Because the issue was so settled until now?

    I'm sure your readers would welcome a discussion of the constitutionality of DOMA, should you ever decide to actually report on the issue.

    Again this "newspaper" feeds the inflammatory response rather than advancing the discussion. There are, after all, legitimate questions here. The commenters on this site have done a better job elucidating the relevant issues than your editors and writers have.

  • PolishBear Charleston, WV
    Feb. 24, 2011 7:17 a.m.

    WELL IT'S ABOUT TIME! There was never any point in defending something as clearly unconstitutional as the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act." DOMA sets up differing legal standards for Gay and Straight couples. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Iowa or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government for the purposes of tax law and Social Security; obviously this violates the 14th Amendment. Also, such couples become "UN-married" if they move across state lines, so DOMA violates the "Full Faith & Credit" clause.

    The first comment above, from "Bubble," claims that marriage is a states rights issue. This is not true. The overwhelming majority of legal benefits come from the FEDERAL government. If marriage is to be a states rights issue, then you can kiss Social Security benefits for your surviving spouse goodbye.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Feb. 24, 2011 7:19 a.m.

    "This will come back to haunt the president in 2012 with lost support."

    Only among Tea Partiers and people who would have never voted for him anyway. I don't think President Obama is losing much sleep over not winning Utah.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 7:25 a.m.

    KJB1-

    I'm sure barack gets plenty of sleep and rest. That's just about sums up his presidency. Golf, vacation to hawaii, vacation to india, vacation to europe, vacation to new york, vacation to hawaii, smoke, smoke, quit smoking, smoke again, smoke, golf, spend $5 Trillion that isn't his to spend, print money, golf, smoke, eat ribs, eat hamburger, tell everyone else to get healthy, print more money, golf.....

    Not exactly a hard working legacy.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Feb. 24, 2011 7:31 a.m.

    These decisions are not unprecedented, as this "opinion" says in its first paragraph, so that's an outright mistatement of fact or a misprint.

    Second, keep opinions where they belong, in your opinion section, not on the front-page sections of your news. The fact that any paper feels the need to provide and opinion, I feel, is not providing the news, but making the news. Let's stick with reporting the news! This goes for all news organizations!

  • KayBob Hill AFB, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 7:32 a.m.

    @The Sensible Middle
    You probably just haven't kept up, but in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., marriages for same-sex couples are legal and currently performed.
    In New York, Rhode Island, and Maryland, same-sex marriages are recognized, but not performed. (Note that Maryland is expected to pass same-sex marriage legislation during the 2011 legislative session.)
    It's happening. But you can also see the effects of such legislation on the rights of people to the free exercise of their religion, per the 1st Amendment.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Feb. 24, 2011 7:34 a.m.

    @Jared: So back then, liberty meant something different; but apparently we know exactly what they meant by the word "created." Nice try!

  • EPJ Grantsville, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 8:01 a.m.

    I disagree with the Deseret News on one issue: this in NOT untested social policy we are talking about.

    The Roman empire already "tested-out" that policy with disastrous results! Their "social policy" cancer transformed them into hedonistic animals who were easily overthrown and destroyed by stronger political parties.

    The Executive Branch of the federal government defends the law. It is only the Legislative Branch which enacts law, not the Judicial or Executive branches. Treacherous BO took an oath to defend our laws! This is just astounding.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 8:08 a.m.

    not unprecedented..
    Bushco
    Clinton
    Old Bush
    Reagan.

    plenty of times,
    It's immoral to give people equal rights.
    But it was moral to wire tap Americans
    I'll take equality over a police state any day!

  • Sponge Bob Rockwall, TX
    Feb. 24, 2011 8:30 a.m.

    The responsibility of the Executive Branch is to uphold the law of the land. They can suggest laws to congress but ultimately, they're not to create laws. That responsibility resides with Congress. It was designed that way to protect us (the People) from dictatorial leaders who make and enforce their own laws. This Obama regime has decided it doesn't like the elected officials in Congress so are seeking every way possible to go around them. If Obama doesn't like DOMA...he should have it repealed. But it is his duty to enforce.

    As for DOMA...someone stated above that it is a states rights issue. I'm okay with that. But what DOMA does is protect states that DON'T want same sex marriage.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 8:30 a.m.

    The sewer in Washington continues to soil our nation with politicians that lack conviction,honesty,and values. If marraige is a states' Rights issue, which it is, then Obama should stay 'true' to his convictions by allowing the states to decide about Health Care. Alas, this is a a no-brainer for those who have any convictions. Marraige is between a man and a women. Any comment otherwise only shows your lack of conviction about right and wrong. Silence may be an indication of cowardice, but hard to prove. Speaking up removes all doubt! Obama has indeed spoken. He blew another chance to strengthen the citizens he leads; instead he chose to validate something that will only lead to further erosion and destruction of the family. This alone would cause me cast my vote for someone else. I want leaders that know the difference between right and wrong and are willing to stand up for it.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 8:35 a.m.

    To Happy Valley Heretic,

    It is immoral to take away other peoples freedoms in the name of equal rights.

    If gays are able to change the definition of marriage, then the next assault is on freedom of religion. They'll force their way into every church and have the government dictate to the church what they can preach.

    I would take not calling gay union as a marriage over a police state taking away religious liberty anyday.

    That is where this is heading.

    Remember legalizing alcohol was going to increase peoples freedom. However their were consequences. We as a society are paying for it. Maybe you haven't listened to your neighbors wife being beaten by her drunk husband. I have. It's not pretty rushing over to try and help and have knife pulled on you.

    Why aren't gays satisfied with having a union? Because it doesn't go far enough to take away other peoples rights and force their beliefs down other peoples throats.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 8:42 a.m.

    The Constitution also makes it clear that you MAY NOT SINGLE OUT A GROUP OF PEOPLE FOR discrimination (punishment).

    The decision to not defend an Unconstitutional Law IS the Right decision.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 8:54 a.m.

    The Sensible Middle | 6:27 a.m. Feb. 24, 2011
    Bountiful, UT
    There is no state that allows marriages between gays is there? Civil Unions are allowed, the difference is only the name.

    Don't understand why this isn't good enough. Also don't understand how calling the union between gays Marriage would hurt anyones hetrosexual marriage, i.e. why the name Defence of Marriage Act?

    If anyone can explain please do so.

    ==========================

    6 States ALREADY allow same-sex marriages.

    Civil Unions do NOT carry the same legal benefits. Calling ssm "civil unions" segregates these MARRIAGES out as inferior to heterosexual Marriages. Thereby leading to more discrimination against same sex couples.

  • Bubble SLC, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 8:56 a.m.

    @ PolishBear: Marriage is a state's rights issue - states have always had the right to determine who can get married and who can perform that marriage and the Federal Government has honored that by providing benefits to those that the individual states have determined to be legally married under the requirements of the state where the marriage took place. For the Federal Government to say they are not going to honor certain types of legal marriages infringes upon the rights of the states to determine what a legal marriage is.

    @JSB: There are valid societal reasons to prohibit the other situations you posit will follow from same-sex marriage. Do you have a valid societal reason to prohibit same-sex marriage? If not, your comparisons are invalid.

    @ KayBob: Please provide evidence of one violation of Freedom of Religion based on same-sex marriage.

    @ EPJ: The Roman Empire never had same-sex marriage. They had straight marriage for children and families and those who were inclined had same-sex relationships on the side. They lasted this way for hundreds of years. Shortly after they changed religions, however, their society was destroyed - perhaps that was the cause?

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 24, 2011 9:02 a.m.

    Many people seem to think that civil unions and/or domestic partnerships are equal to marriage.

    This is not so - particularly under the 3rd part of DOMA which prevents Federal recognition of anything other than opposite-sex marriage.

    In order for civil unions and domestic partnerships to be equal, those joined under those titles would have to have equal access to Federal benefits - which means the third part of DOMA has to be done away with and all Federal laws must be changed to recognize civil unions and domestic partnerships as equal to marriage - this may be as simple as changing the definition of spouse (but for some reason, I think a lot of people would object to that as well...).

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 9:32 a.m.

    '@ PolishBear: Marriage is a state's rights issue' - 'Bubble | 8:56 a.m. Feb. 24, 2011

    Then why is straight marriage recognized federally, or across all 50 states?

    '@JSB: There are valid societal reasons to prohibit the other situations you posit will follow from same-sex marriage.' - Same

    And what are they? This is a blanket statement with no evidence to support it. aka the 'boogyman' will get you if we allow gay marriage.

    Use some facts to win an argument.

    '@ KayBob: Please provide evidence of one violation of Freedom of Religion based on same-sex marriage.' - Same

    Easy. Temple marriage.

    Isn't it a good thing then that advocates only want federal recognition for gay marriage?

    '@ EPJ: The Roman Empire never had same-sex marriage.' - Same

    Because you were there. What are you citing for thsi comparison?

    Nothing.

    Also, America is NOT the Roman Empire.

    America has made changes to marriage.

    Polygamy, Utah 1890
    Interacial marriage, 1967
    Gay marriage, MA 2004
    Amendment 3, Utah 2004

    Just four examples. So your 'hundreds of years?'

    Try seven.

    The DSNews is on the wrong side of history.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 9:37 a.m.

    Our government's mandate to legislate the will of the people... and our system of judges to protect and enforce these rules of law... has changed a lot over time, and in this case not for the better.

  • UtahDemocrat Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 9:49 a.m.

    I wonder if those who are so opposed to Obama's actions would also have been opposed to Lincoln's decision to oppose slavery before the Constitution allowed him to do so.

    As for those who paint a false distinction between animus and so called moral opposition, I can introduce you to several sexist men who use the bible to justify their sexism. And the KKK regularly quotes the bible to justify racism. Bible bashing doesn't make intolerance moral.

  • Ridgely Magna, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 10:12 a.m.

    Election year politicking created DOMA and Utah's Amendment Three, but its Homophobia and thinly veiled bigotry that keeps them alive.

    To those posters who flippantly say the LGBT community should simply take a legislative route to end discrimination, just look at the anti-gay bills that were floated at the Utah State Legislature this year. What chance of a fair hearing would they ever even have?

    About as much chance as a Utah Snowflake in, well you know where.

  • Bubble SLC, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 10:22 a.m.

    @ Pagan: You know, love, perhaps you should go back and reread my comments as well as the comments I am commenting on - it would clear up some of your confusion.

    And FYI - it is bad form to attack someone who is defending your position.

  • Phargo Rexburg, ID
    Feb. 24, 2011 10:36 a.m.

    Whether one agrees with DOMA or not is beside the point. Arbitrarily deciding which laws to enforce and which to dismiss sets an extremely dangerous precedent. Would same people cheering Obama's decision with DOMA defend the legality of a President unilaterally dismissing Roe v. Wade?

    President Obama undermines the office he swore to uphold. He is showing contempt for the rule of law, the constitution and for the people who democratically elected the people who enacted the law. Ironically, it is NOT a legal question that can justify his decision to allow people to break the law, it is in fact a moral argument he makes.

    Regardless of the reason, motivation, or language for any law, it is still the law. Unless something changes, there is a system for changing laws with which one does not agree. It worked in cases like slavery and segregation.

  • FairEnough Draper, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 11:11 a.m.

    DADT and DOMA establish religious superstitions into our government by denying equal protection based on religious bigotry against a select group of citizens. It is wrong and immoral to deny equal protection in this way, and President Obama was right to finally step up to the plate and refuse to defend the indefensible. He swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. He is honoring that oath.

  • OregonMan West Linn, OR
    Feb. 24, 2011 11:56 a.m.

    I agree with the Deseret News editorial board. Selective enforcement of laws by the executive branch is wrong and sets a dangerous precedent. Obama now shares this disregard for the will of the people with Arnold Swcharzenegger and Jerry Brown.

  • MelancholyMe Ogden, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 11:58 a.m.

    The creativity that this administration uses to enact illegal legislation or gut laws they do not like is astounding.

    For all of you that are supporting Pres. Obama on this issue I suppose you will support the next president that uses the same tactics to implement their agenda. Even though it invalidates laws you support.

    This is defiantly the wrong way to go about disavowing a law. Don't let this precedent stand. Everyone should be up in arms about this tactic. All the gay rights activist need to look down the road and see how this may be used against them in the future. When you fight dirty, you can expect those that oppose you to fight dirty also.

  • wear2manyhatz Holladay, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 12:16 p.m.

    Part 1:

    I am disappointed with this article, but every media and person has a right to their views. However, no one has the right to promulgate lies and slander.

    I just read thru all these comments. Sadly, I am not shocked at the hate and bigotry, masked as religious conviction, in many. Homophobia reigns among DesNews readers.

    I've lived here a little more than 10 years. I'd been told that Utah was a welcoming place, and truly cared about it's residents. Yet, year after year, I've seen that "care" disintegrate, led by our Legislature and followed by its people.

    The President decided "enough was enough" when it came to supporting a law that is distinctly unconstitutional. Someone compared it to Row v Wade. This Constitutional law has been challenged and held up.

    All you "constitutional scholars" should be thrilled by this decision! You voted in people like Lee, who demanded that "if it's not constitutional, get it out". Isn't that the very reason you've opposed HRC? That it is unconstitutional?

    Congress has passed bills that make Constitutional amendments impossible to act on. Illegal acts are cheered by your same group.

    Continued

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 12:18 p.m.

    @phargo
    "Arbitrarily deciding which laws to enforce and which to dismiss sets an extremely dangerous precedent."

    No.

    @Oregonman
    "Selective enforcement of laws by the executive branch is wrong and sets a dangerous precedent. "

    No.

    The law is still in place and enforced and I've seen so many comments from people who don't seem to be understanding this.

  • wear2manyhatz Holladay, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 12:18 p.m.

    Part 2

    You don't care what the law says. You only care about finding another ridiculous reason to bash the President. If your allegations about his citizenship and religion aren't enough, let's nail him with either breaking, or not breaking, Constitutional laws.

    Face it. You will only be satisfied if he is assassinated.

    DOMA and DADT were horrible laws, and passed by a Democratic president, who felt he had no choice. This President is doing everything possible to give all Americans equal status, with opportunities accessible for every American. Your fears that this could lead to incest, or telling churches what they can teach is ridiculous. Most of the arguments here simply show that you think rights are only for white, male landowners.

    What is wrong is when churches or other organizations that receive any kind of government funding exclude anyone. Congress has all but destroyed Planned Parenthood, which ash always been available to anyone.

    Which way do you want it, folks? Because a lot of us are going to stop listening when you keep complaining about everything.

    You want your cake, and you want to eat it. The result? A whole lot of uncomfortable bloating.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 1:25 p.m.

    I think it is foolish, unnecessary, unproductive, wrong and even unconstitutional for religious people to go to war over the meaning of a word.

    There is nothing in the word marriage to limit the freedom of adult Americans of any sort. Nor is there any thing in the word marriage that enables or permits the harm to any other American.

    If there have been privileges, rights and freedoms given out by our society based upon a word, they can be taken back without messing with the word just as easily.

  • Walt Nicholes Orem, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 1:34 p.m.

    This is like letting a sitting president veto an act after it has already ben signed into law. I think that this should be (mild) grounds for impeachment.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 1:36 p.m.

    It is regrettable when the administration decides it won't support or defend it's own laws... for political purposes.

    This is a relatively new tactic. Administrations in the past would put partisan agendas aside when it came to the Attorney General defend the current law until it was no longer the current law.

    That's what SHOULD have been done in this case.

    When the US Attorney General refuses to defend current law... that's using his position for subversion and sabotage of the law/Congress... or a subtle way of back-door legislating (which is not their job).

    Even if he doesn't personally support the law... he should officially defend it UNTIL the Supreme Court steps in and changes it. It's not his job to overturn it.

    When he uses his office to fight AGAINST Congress, or the laws passed by Congress... he is not doing his job.

    The job of the US Dept of Justice is... "To vigorously defended the constitutionality of federal statutes when challenged in court".

    The Supreme Court overruling Congress is a different story... that's their job... as outlined in the Constitution.

    Attorney General and Supreme Court have different jobs.

  • mkSdd3 Ogden, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 1:59 p.m.

    @Wear2ManyHatz

    You are delusional. The point of the opinion piece was that Obama is wrong in the actions he is taking to get ride of a law that is already on the books. It has nothing to do with the law itself.

    You seem to suggest that the actions are good because they take down an unconstitutional law. If the law is unconstitutional the case should be taken to court and argued in court. The route that Mr. Obama has chosen is obviously wrong and it wouldn't matter which law he was choosing not to defend. This is the wrong way to go about it.

    Everything you chose to put into your comment is filled with hate. Please stop the hate, we don't need it in the comments.

  • BleedCougarBlue Enid, OK
    Feb. 24, 2011 2:03 p.m.

    Obama and Eric Holder are absolute buffoons.

    Sorry, there's simply no nice way to say it.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 2:17 p.m.

    'This is like letting a sitting president veto an act after it has already ben signed into law. I think that this should be (mild) grounds for impeachment.' - Walt Nicholes | 1:34 p.m. Feb. 24, 2011

    But falsefying information to justify two wars is not?

    Obama dosen't want to spend tax money on marriage 'defense' and he should be impeached, but Bush lies about Iraq and you say nothing.

    Nice 'morality' there.

    President Obama is a servant of the people, not it's slave. Other courts have ruled DOMA unconstitutional, should a law, in dispute, be defended?

    I would say 'no.'

    Personal attacks on Obama aside ('Obama and Eric Holder are absolute buffoons) what are the VALID reasons Obama should defend this law when it is in dispute in the judicial branch?

    None.

    Bush created the TSA and Patriot Act, and those same people say nothing about infringing in personal lives.

    If you want to stop hate, then stop denying over 1,000 legal protections to tax paying Americans...

    because you don't like their orientation...

    based on something you believe....

    and don't KNOW.

    If you don't like gay marriage.

    don't have 1.

  • L Central Utah, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 2:25 p.m.

    @PolishBear7:17 says "WELL IT'S ABOUT TIME! There was never any point in defending something as clearly unconstitutional as the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act." DOMA sets up differing legal standards for Gay and Straight couples. "

    If I understand you feel there should be no laws which treat individuals differently. Those who wear clothes are treated differently than those who don't regardless of real or percived consequences. 16 year olds are treated different than those younger (they can drive.) Disabled have been granted special parking priviliges than others. There are nany others!

    I think the impact of this article is the people I elect (and pay)to make laws have made them. The person who is elected and paid to enforce the laws can't decide not to enforce it, for that job there is the Court. The Supreme Court has not decided that this law is unconstitutional and the executive branch shouldn't enforce it. Therefore Mr. Holder etc. is not doing what he is paid to do regardless of what you or I feel are the merits. Congress has the opportunity to repeal it if they feel that properly represents the people who elected them.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 3:02 p.m.

    wear2manyhatz | 12:16 p.m. Feb. 24, 2011
    Holladay, UT

    Why is it, when someone has an opinion different from yours, they are hateful? Do you call your comments reasoned discourse? And who said anything about wanting an assassination? Why would you even raise such a scenario?

    I am a registered Democrat, and proud of what my party represents. However, I also recognize that some issues are larger than party. The issue in this instance is not DOMA (which I am against), but an unauthorized exercise of authority.

    A crucial function of the executive branch is to ensure that laws are carried out and enforced--not to rule on their constitutionality. That purview rests with the Supreme Court, whose primary function is to hear cases that challenge legislation or require interpretation of that legislation

    Again--Congress may pass laws, and the president has the power to veto them. But, the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a law, not the Executive Branch. And THAT is the larger issue here.

    And please--stop the hate and assassination talk.

  • Phargo Rexburg, ID
    Feb. 24, 2011 3:47 p.m.

    RE: Proteos

    "It's the right precedent because its the duty of the Executive Branch, as a co-equal branch, to check the constitutionality of the actions of the other branches. Each branch is subordinate to the Constitution and not to the other branches. They are sworn to preserve, protect, defend, support, etc the Constitution and not the unconstitutional acts or decisions of the other branches."

    DOMA was enacted following the legislative process. It is law. Deciding not to enforce it is a MORAL opinion, not a legal one. By not enforcing it, he undermines the legislative and judicial process. This is not reflecting a "co-equal" mindset as you state.

    "Yes. If a President refuses to defend Roe v. Wade I would support his right to do so, even if he is an idiot for doing so, but that isn't the same thing."

    A President would have no right to do so under the constitution. Where would you draw the line?

    "He is preserving, protecting and defending the U.S. Constitution and doing his duty. He was elected to check your representatives unconstitutional votes in the Legislature."

    This statement is inaccurate on many so levels.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 3:59 p.m.

    wear2manyhatz | 12:18 p.m.

    You need to take deep breath and take it down a notch or two. Your assassination comment is exactly the type of overly-hyped attack intended to offend people and cause contention... the kind of comment that could easily lead to violence... the kind of comment we have been trying to eliminate from the discourse lately. Didn't you get the memo about civility?

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 24, 2011 4:46 p.m.

    @ L: You are right, we have many laws in this country that treat differently situated individuals differently - such as laws prohibiting nudity, or requiring you to be of a certain age to drive or to drink. But for everyone of those laws, there is a valid governmental reason to treat those differently situated people differently. For instance, brain development is behind laws setting driving and drinking ages.

    DOMA treats similarly situated people differently - and so far, no one has been able to provide a reason why the Government should do that. If a person is legally married in Massachusetts, the gender of their spouse should have no effect on filing their taxes as a married couple.

    There is a difference between treating differently situated people differently and treating similarly situated people differently.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Feb. 24, 2011 5:17 p.m.

    @ Bubble
    What are the valid social reasons for preventing marriage between two brothers or two sisters or a brother and a sister, or a father and a daughter and or polyamorous families, etc? The point is, once we open the door to liberalizing the definition of marriage, the other relationships will get legal status for the same reasons that gays want that status. Two (or more) people loving and caring for each other does not a marriage make. Marriage between a man and a woman is the nucleus of the family and its purpose is to raise healthy, well-adjusted children.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Feb. 24, 2011 6:45 p.m.

    @ Joggle
    You didnt respond to my concerns. You only implied that I have homophobia. But I do not have an irrational terror of homosexuals. For the good of our children, I am concerned about the long term social consequences of liberalizing the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. As a former public school teacher and principal, I made the same observations and conclusions as many other people in education: Children are much better off in a traditional home with a father and a stay-at-home mother. Other situations (working mother, divorced single mom, out of wedlock unmarried mother, etc.) tend to be harmful to the healthy development of the child. Homosexual marriage will inevitably lead to other strange relationships including polyamory that I mentioned in my prior response. How will this affect our children, our schools, our neighborhoods, etc? Do you want a polyamorous family living next door to you? Or even in your own neighborhood? We must strengthen the home and family, not undermine it. Why cant homosexuals and see the potential social dangers in opening the Pandoras box of gay marriage. Maybe, they just don't care.

  • Joggle Clearfield, UT
    Feb. 24, 2011 11:15 p.m.

    SB

    Homophobia happens in general. I agree that children are somewhat better in a traditional home with a father and a mother....stay home or not! Many different home situations can be harmful to a child whether heterosexual or homosexual. Murderers, convicted felons, even known child molesters are all allowed to freely marry and procreate, and do so every day, with hardly a second thought by critics. So if children are truly the priority here, why is this allowed? Why are the advocates of this argument not working to prohibit the above categories of people from raising children? All traditional heterosexual two-parent situations are NOT ideal and alternatively many homosexual parents are! What counts is stability, love, support, understanding, and communication.

    Homosexual marriage inevitably leading to other strange relationships is a untrue assumption not based on_fact. Sexual/romantic relationships (polyamory) that are not sexually exclusive already happens in private between consenting adults and I really don't care what other people do in private. I will never know my neighbors sexual business. We can only hope society as a whole raises children responsibly no matter what the gender. We cannot control the private lives of others.

  • Mr. Bean SLC, Utah
    Feb. 25, 2011 1:20 a.m.

    @delasalle

    "...I reject the notion that allowing gay marriage to happen will result in all other forms of 'marriage' that you have enumerated to be allowed."

    It depends on how large, adamant, and persistent the group is who insists on other marriage arrangements (other than man/women) as an equal right. Same sex marriage may eventually come to be and the other marriages listed by JSB may not. But that does not mean those who prefer other types of marriages would not be discriminated against. Discrimination against homosexual marriage is absolutely no different than discrimination against marrying your sister, aunt, mother, or a frog.

    It takes a liberal to argue for one type of aberrant marriage while at the same exact time arguing against another type of aberrant marriage. That is, in fact, a liberal's stock in trade. Another example: Liberals are all for abortion insisting they can do what they will with their own bodies... trying with all their inconsistent might to ignore the fact that the fetus is not their body. Go figure.

  • Miss Piggie SLC, Utah
    Feb. 25, 2011 1:45 a.m.

    @The Sensible Middle

    "Don't understand why this (civil unions) isn't good enough"

    Because homosexuals, as a whole, think they have been ignored long enough and want to stick it to the married folk. They are envious of the special relationship between a man and woman who are married and want to try to capture that special relationship for themselves. What they don't know is, it won't work... in this life or the next.

    "Also don't understand how calling the union between gays Marriage would hurt anyone's heterosexual marriage..."

    It's not hurting any specific marriage. It is hurting the institution of marriage with the long standing tradition of a union between a man and a woman. Soon we will have a plethora of aberrant marriages once homosexual marriages become legal.

    "...i.e. why the name Defense of Marriage Act?"

    The idea was to try to preserve the traditional of family and marriage.

    -----------

    @PolishBear

    "Also, such couples become "UN-married" if they move across state lines..."

    They are not actually married because the state who married them violated federal law, per the Constitutional Supremacy Clause.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Feb. 25, 2011 7:59 a.m.

    We are going to follow the constitution - unless it allows someone to contradict my religious beliefs........

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 25, 2011 8:25 a.m.

    'It (gay marriage) is hurting the institution of marriage with the long standing tradition of a union between a man and a woman.' - Miss Piggie | 1:45 a.m.

    False.

    Utah fully supported marriage between one man and one woman and one woman and one woman...

    well, you get the idea...

    until 1890.

    Polygamys marriage was NOT two people. It was one man, and MANY women.

    Now we are going to try to fall back on the 'tradition' of marriage between two people...

    when Utah had marriage between many?

    That is false. All this talk about respecting 'the law', and yet 1) MA enacted it's own state laws, didn't it?

    And now, people from outside this state, want to deny its allowance of gay marriage.

    Also, before Prop 8 gay marriage was very MUCH legal. 18,000 married gay couples support this.

    And yet no one 'respected the law' when Prop 8 was funeded, correct? This was again, disrepsect for existing laws, and influnce from outside local goverment on a local issue.

    You can't talk about both sides of your mouth and expect people to listen.

    Or rather, fail to point out the contradictions.

  • Mike in Texas Allen, TX
    Feb. 25, 2011 8:53 a.m.

    150 years ago the LDS church might well have agreed that the DOM act was unconstitutional. If the Deseret News editorial is reflecting the Church's position on this question (as I suspect it does), my! how things have changed.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Feb. 25, 2011 10:46 a.m.

    We just have to keep stating the obvious here.

    Gay marriage isn't a slipery slope issue because minors and animals can't enter into legal contracts such as marriage.

    Nobody has ever forced a religious leader to perform any marriage.

    These are false and dishonest arguments. Stop.

    As much as you want to believe the constitution is a religious document, it isn't.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
    Feb. 25, 2011 11:36 a.m.

    @Screwdriver:
    "We are going to follow the constitution - unless it allows someone to contradict my religious beliefs........"

    Why are your religious beliefs so special? We live in a diverse country and we need to accept that diversity.

    I suppose you and I might be on the same side of this debate -- by some wild coincidence. You are only hurting your position by bring in irrelevant arguments. The worst argument for a cause is not a good argument against it but a bad argument for it. Go chew on that one.

    Tekakaromatagi

  • Idaho guy Meridian, ID
    Feb. 25, 2011 11:43 a.m.

    DOMA will end up at the Supreme Court. DOMA also tried to guarantee state's their rights by saying a state opposed to same-gender marriage would now have to recognize marriage from another state. And yet so many in support of this decision talk about how this is a win for state's rights? Really? By taking away the right to determine what is recognized in your own state?

    This is wrong. Even if you disagree with DOMA work through the proper channels to get it repealed and replaced, don't just ignore and refuse to uphold law. We see how well that kind of logic has worked in the immigration debate...

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 25, 2011 11:58 a.m.

    'Why are your religious beliefs so special?' - Tekakaromatagi | 11:36 a.m.

    The difference, is that the gay community is not TRYING to force any religious beliefs on anyone. Only ask for equal treatment and the same legal protections enjoyed by straight married couples.


    'By taking away the right to determine what is recognized in your own state?' - Idaho guy | 11:43 a.m.

    This might be true...IF states had the choice to recognize marriage from other states. Since straight marriage is recognized on a FEDERAL level (all 50 states) to add a restriction on certian KINDS of marriages sets a unconstitutional limitation.

    i.e. Jim and Mary's marriage should ALSO then, NOT be recognized in another state. Not just Ben and Steve's.

    A state has every right to deny marriage, if the marriage ONLY had state income tax discounts.

    But, again, marriage stopped being a local or religious ceremony..

    the SECOND the marriage, any marriage, got federal recognition.

    You want to stop marriage recognition by state?

    Ok.

    Start with your own.

    Because that is the only marriage you should ever have any control over.

  • Question Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 25, 2011 12:29 p.m.

    Pagan | 11:58 a.m.

    Who is forcing their Religious Beliefs upon you?

    What specific religious belief has been forced upon you... and when?

  • Uncle Charles Where freedom and liberty reign, utah
    Feb. 25, 2011 1:08 p.m.

    It's funny reading Liberals stating this is a state's rights issue.

    Yep, abortion was a state's rights issue.
    Prop 8 was a state's rights issue.
    Healthcare was a state's rights issue.
    Gun rights was a state's rights issue.

    You are correct this is a state's rights issue. However, since 31 states have rejected the perversion of homosexuality as marriage, homosexuals take it to the federal courts to try to get the state's to comply with their wishes.

    DOMA simply states that states don't have to recognize the homosexual marriages that might be performed in another state.

    So if it's a state's rights issue then all the lawsuits in federal court will cease and all homosexuals will abide by the decision of the state's and the laws the state's enact. Or move to one of the 5 states that accepts the perversion of homosexuality as marriage.

    Your choice! You are still for choice, right?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 25, 2011 1:24 p.m.

    uncle Charles: "DOMA simply states that states don't have to recognize the homosexual marriages that might be performed in another state."

    That is a federal law. Please state how that law can be constitutional when the constitution states: "Full Faith and Credit sahll be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Prodeedings of every other State."

    It does not state that a state can pick and choose which proceeding it deems legal, does it? If you are married in one state, you should be married in all states. Drivers license in one state, legal to drive in all states. Divorced in one state, divorced in all states.

    Please tell me how you reconcile this law with the "supreme law of the land," our constitution.

  • Laser Iowa City, IA
    Feb. 25, 2011 2:06 p.m.

    Great article Desnews. DOMA is the law of the land and should be supported as much. If you disagree there is a constitutional way to change it.

  • Miss Piggie SLC, Utah
    Feb. 25, 2011 2:17 p.m.

    @Screwdriver:

    "Gay marriage isn't a slippery slope issue because minors and animals can't enter into legal contracts such as marriage."

    Who needs a contract? Besides, the rules for legal contracts affecting marriage of minors can be changed... and should be changed if you are truly in favor of fairness and equity across all forms of marriage.

    "We just have to keep stating the obvious here."

    Obviously. And the obvious is that allowing any aberration of marriage is a slippery slope regardless if others think so or not.

    -----------------

    @Pagan:

    "Polygamist marriage was NOT two people. It was one man, and MANY women."

    I take your point, Pagan. We are yet in the early stages of more exotic marriage arrangements such as several men marrying each other. Or, perhaps a plethora of people of both sexes tying a collective knot.

    Call your dog in and give him/her a hug.

  • Uncle Charles Where freedom and liberty reign, utah
    Feb. 25, 2011 2:31 p.m.

    @Lane: You forget to post the rest of that clause. here it is:

    "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

    Congress determined through the law the effect of the clause in establishing DOMA. In doing so, it stated that states do not have to recognize homosexual marriages from other states. Congress was completely within its authority to prescribe the manner in which those things shall be proved and the effect thereof.

    I agree with DOMA and it was also clearly ahead of the homosexual movement in trying to run to the courts to have states recognize their perversion. It was cutting off the activist judges who create law. Roe v Wade is a perfect example of judicial activism taking the rights of states away from them and declaring what they want on a nation that wasn't looking for it.

    Why shouldn't states be allowed to eliminate abortion if they desire?

    If you move to another state your driver's license will need to be updated to that state and you might need to take another test.

  • Uncle Charles Where freedom and liberty reign, utah
    Feb. 25, 2011 2:37 p.m.

    @Lane continued:

    Is your law license from NY allowed in UT or do you have to take the UT bar?

    Does a hair stylist license from UT work in AZ?

    What are the driving license ages in each state?

    What are the drinking laws in each state?

    Are the speed limits the same in each state?

    Should we have the Feds come in and take rule over all those individual state requirements?

    States are free to enact laws that the residents desire and if a law from one state is in contradiction from a law in another state so be it.

    It's an easy concept to understand for those who wish to dig a little deeper than the top surface. Hopefully you are one of those who will do that but I don't hold my breath since your history indicates otherwise.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 25, 2011 3:21 p.m.

    Uncle Charles: "It's an easy concept to understand for those who wish to dig a little deeper than the top surface. Hopefully you are one of those who will do that but I don't hold my breath since your history indicates otherwise. "

    Really? You have never heard an apology from me here? I am surprised that you said that.

    I do agree that the congress can "prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." Does it say they can void acts of the court from one state to another? Can a state make a couple marry again in their state if they move into that state?

    Acts, Records and judicial proceedings does NOT include speed limits, drinking age, and all laws enacted by that state, does it. I think you went a little off base here.

    Court acttions are to be given full faith and credit in other states.

    Are you telling me that an adoption by a gay couple in California is invalid here in Utah because Utah does not let gay couples adopt?

    Really? Each state can work out what it will and will not accept?

  • Uncle Charles Where freedom and liberty reign, utah
    Feb. 25, 2011 4:38 p.m.

    @Lane: no, I have never seen you apologize for anything. sorry.

    Can you take your law license from NY and practice in UT without taking the UT bar? If the answer is no, then yes, one state is voiding the act of another state.

    There are many licenses that aren't accepted across state lines.

    I didn't go off the reservation at all. I'm pointing out that states do have different laws for different things that are not accepted in another state. The point is that the rest of the clause does allow for Congress to enact DOMA which protects states from being forced through the courts to recognize something that they have chosen not to.

    If Congress passes a law that says one state does not have to recognize an adoption by a homosexual couple signed in another state then yes, it can be done.

    What's the purpose of having states and their laws if the Feds are just going to override everything that state enacts?

    Kind of like NCLB -- complete overreach by the Feds into a local issue.

    It was preemptive yet sad that we need it. Homosexuality isn't marriage.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 25, 2011 4:50 p.m.

    Lane Myer | 3:21 p.m. Feb. 25, 2011
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Can a state make a couple marry again in their state if they move into that state?

    I suppose they can, if that is really what they want to do. After all, they have decided my driver's license is only valid for a period of time--basically, on a transient basis. If I decide to live in another state, I have to get a new license, or give up the privilege. If I had a CCW, it may or may not be valid in another state, depending on how that state feels about CCW's. So, there are a number of limitations on the Full Faith and Credit Act

  • wrz SLC, Utah
    Feb. 25, 2011 11:39 p.m.

    @Chris B:

    "So, there are a number of limitations on the Full Faith and Credit Act."

    Interesting point. And valid point, as well.

    That's why DOMA was needed. DOMA, with the aid of the Supremacy Clause, supersedes all state laws on the issue. If a state 'marries' two females the marriage is null and void... even in the state where performed.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 26, 2011 12:37 p.m.

    Being a "law and order" kind of guy, I can appreciate the position that the law is the law and that the executive branch, state or federal, must defend the law.

    Someone wrote, "that the Obama administration did in fact defend DOMA in court and lost. What they are deciding to do now is not continue on appeals...There is no expectation that an administration must continue to fight a losing battle if they don't believe they will win."

    This makes complete sense and also applies to CA's Prop.8 which was thoroughly trounced in court. Prop.8's lawyers gave a feeble defense since there is no solid defense legally possible. It's more than reasonable to not expect government to spend tax dollars defending laws that have been shown legally specious.

    I wonder if the DN would defend DOMA had it been written 120 years ago aimed at plural marriage or written 50 years ago regarding mixed race marriages. Both were held to be morally suspect by the majority. I see no objective difference.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    Feb. 26, 2011 1:19 p.m.

    Governments legally bind heterosexual couples for good reason. These relationships are crucial for our survival. Those who would destroy the social meaning of marriage would also destroy humanity. When government caves to the demands of powerful special interest groups, who, with increasing control, push an agenda that might destroy many generations, it is always cause for concern.

    There seems to be little concern for daily lives and teh future of our children among many in power.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    Feb. 26, 2011 1:32 p.m.

    To those crying that gay marriage is a tested social policy, I disagree. Homosexual behaviour is tested, and is destructive. Legitimate studies on places allowing gay marriage and homosexuality in general are still in their infancy, but so far they show that gays are still far more promiscuous than others (no decrease with marriage), still continue with higher rates of violence, suicide, drug addiction, divorce, etc. And, gays still continue to encourage the break up of families and abandonment of spouses (if someone feels attracted to the same sex adultery is a condoned right, and the gay community, in general, argues that the spouse, if mature, will just deal with it and say "good bye, I love you".)

    Check narth, also "Creating Gay Children."

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 26, 2011 2:07 p.m.

    JSB - Children are much better off in a traditional home with a father and a stay-at-home mother.

    LDS - Agreed, but will outlawing SSM keep gays from raising kids? Obviously not. Is it better for kids to have the legal protections offered them via their parents' marriage or not? If the former, then denying marriage to same-sex couples HARMS CHILDREN. Period.

    If marriage is about having kids, then let's only give marriage to couples who will bring children into the world. No new marriages for women over 45, for the sterile or infertile, etc...Also, for those couples who don't produce kids within..say..3 years of being married, their marriage licenses are revoked. If they can't produce kids, why do they need or deserve marriage any more than same-sex couples who can't either?

    I'd really like to know.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 26, 2011 2:51 p.m.

    Pagan: "..the gay community is not TRYING to force any religious beliefs on anyone. Only ask for equal treatment and the same legal protections enjoyed by straight married couples."
    LDS: Yes, it's the religious who are forcing religious beliefs on society. Will someone...ANYONE...tell me how we LDS are obedient to scripture when 1 Cor.10:29 condemns using religious opinions to limit the rights of others. Prior to Prop.8, gays had the right to marry in CA and we LDS let our religious opinions prompt us to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others (D&C 134:4).

    Uncle Charles: Prop 8 was a state's rights issue.
    LDS: So were laws in the South outlawing mixed-race marriages. No different. Sorry, but "states' rights" can't supersede the constitutional protections of Equal Protection & Due Process.

    Uncle Charles: Is your law license from NY allowed in UT or do you have to take the UT bar?
    LDS: Law and other professional licenses are required because the public relies on the professional expertise of the holders. Marriage licenses are different. They only denote STATUS.

    DOMA & Prop.8 are contrary to scripture. Period.

  • Devilion Taylorsville, UT
    Feb. 28, 2011 5:23 p.m.

    If the definition of marriage changes. This begs the questions of arrange marriages, and the muslim practice of multiple wives. I'm sure that there are many other marriage practices that are currently against US law. Would all of these other marriage practices also be legal?